Twisties Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Didn't want to hijack the other thread which is on whether the decision is good or bad? So here's a new thread for ya': I just can't believe ya'll aren't going off about the "activist court" that just "made law" going against the will of the people and overturning the duly elected government, and all. But I always did say that was just a sham for any decision a certain segment doesn't like. I guess now at least we won't ever be hearing that particular bs again, right? Link to comment
smiller Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Didn't want to hijack the other thread which is on whether the decision is good or bad? So here's a new thread for ya': I just can't believe ya'll aren't going off about the "activist court" that just "made law" going against the will of the people and overturning the duly elected government, and all. But I always did say that was just a sham for any decision a certain segment doesn't like. I guess now at least we won't ever be hearing that particular bs again, right? Sure you will. True 'activist' judges only make rulings that go against a particular ideology (which shall remain nameless.) If the ruling supports one of that ideology's tenets then the ruling isn't 'activist', it's 'correct.' You just have to get your definitions straight. (P.S. I hope that's not too political... I only said it because Whip is watching...) Link to comment
Whip Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 Didn't want to hijack the other thread which is on whether the decision is good or bad? So here's a new thread for ya': I just can't believe ya'll aren't going off about the "activist court" that just "made law" going against the will of the people and overturning the duly elected government, and all. But I always did say that was just a sham for any decision a certain segment doesn't like. I guess now at least we won't ever be hearing that particular bs again, right? Sure you will. True 'activist' judges only make rulings that go against a particular ideology (which shall remain nameless.) If the ruling supports one of that ideology's tenets then the ruling isn't 'activist', it's 'correct.' You just have to get your definitions straight. Exactly Like where it says the Government can take your house to put in a golf course......I like golf courses so it's cool with me. Link to comment
Matts_12GS Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Didn't want to hijack the other thread which is on whether the decision is good or bad? So here's a new thread for ya': I just can't believe ya'll aren't going off about the "activist court" that just "made law" going against the will of the people and overturning the duly elected government, and all. But I always did say that was just a sham for any decision a certain segment doesn't like. I guess now at least we won't ever be hearing that particular bs again, right? Sure you will. True 'activist' judges only make rulings that go against a particular ideology (which shall remain nameless.) If the ruling supports one of that ideology's tenets then the ruling isn't 'activist', it's 'correct.' You just have to get your definitions straight. Not straight, you have to get your definitions right I guess the biggest difference in this Jan is that unlike that "that" law has so many people who dislike that kind of "choice" up in arms... The whole gun thing is actually mentioned in the constitution. Other than that, I'm shocked, shocked I say to think that there's any kind of demagoguery being expressed by the individuals of the court. Link to comment
smiller Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Not straight, you have to get your definitions right I couldn't agree more... in order to blame an 'activist' judge the definitions have to be 'right'... Link to comment
Matts_12GS Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 You're not much of a Texan are you? Thank the great spirit of your choice that we have these freedoms to piss and moan about each other. I'm off to have some wine and relax, y'all be good. Link to comment
Twisties Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 G'evening Matt, I agree that Roe v. Wade is a little farther out than some, though I would have thought those in favor of minimalist governments would applaud it since it essentially says that the government needs a legitimate reason to interfere in private lives. Note: Lets not go off on whether we think there is in fact such a legitimate reason in that case. That discussion is undoubtedly beyond what can be discussed here. On the other hand though, many decisions relating to the "establishment clause" have been criticized as activist when they have limited the ability of government display religious material. That clause is in black and white. Also, many decisions regarding equality under the law have been criticized as activist, most notably in recent times those relating who may or may not get a civil marriage. Equality before the law is certainly in the constitution. I really don't think it has much to do with whether the topic is in black and white. Since a few years after the founding of our republic the Judiciary has taken the role of interpreting the constitution and of necessity all such interpretations are a product of their times and the judges themselves. So long as the judges make a good faith effort to interpret the constitution honestly it seems they perform a necessary role. I perceive the whole matter of the "activist judge" in our times to be an attempt change the balance of power at the expense of the constitution, cleverly and disingenuously disguised as an attempt to strengthen it. Classic doublespeak. What this is about is weakening the judiciary and therefore the role of the constitution in favor of the elected branches for the purpose of evading the constitutional protections afforded to individuals. It is a blatant power grab fueled by the misrepresentation of hot button issues. My point above, in the OP, is that if judicial activism, as charged in the last 30 or so years, were real, this would have to be a classic case, for the reasons stated in the OP. Jan Link to comment
Huzband Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Didn't want to hijack the other thread which is on whether the decision is good or bad? So here's a new thread for ya': I just can't believe ya'll aren't going off about the "activist court" that just "made law" going against the will of the people and overturning the duly elected government, and all. But I always did say that was just a sham for any decision a certain segment doesn't like. I guess now at least we won't ever be hearing that particular bs again, right? I'll deal with you in John Day. Link to comment
Twisties Posted June 28, 2008 Author Share Posted June 28, 2008 Didn't want to hijack the other thread which is on whether the decision is good or bad? So here's a new thread for ya': I just can't believe ya'll aren't going off about the "activist court" that just "made law" going against the will of the people and overturning the duly elected government, and all. But I always did say that was just a sham for any decision a certain segment doesn't like. I guess now at least we won't ever be hearing that particular bs again, right? I'll deal with you in John Day. G'evening Danny, Looking forward to meeting you! Are riding the new RT out? Jan Link to comment
Huzband Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Looking forward to meeting you! Are riding the new RT out? Jan For lack of a better term, DUH! Looking forward to it, Jan. More than you know. Link to comment
Matts_12GS Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Jan, we'll have to have this one offline. I couldn't disagree w/you more about the OP or your perception of judicial activism as I think you and I are heavily filtered by our philosophies. Link to comment
Huzband Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 ....judicial activism.... There's a thread that wouldn't survive the night. Link to comment
smiller Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 There's a thread that wouldn't survive the night. Ya, not getting near this one with a 10-foot pole... Link to comment
Huzband Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 There's a thread that wouldn't survive the night. Ya, not getting near this one with a 10-foot pole... Don't look now, we agree on something. Link to comment
bakerzdosen Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 OK, so when this one gets locked, everybody meet over at boney's thread. Link to comment
hopz Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 Both Twisties and Bullet know which way I roll on things like this, but I can also say that there is an old saying I was familiar with- back when I was in the people business- "What you see depends on where you stand". Or... "I don't have a dog in this fight". Or maybe... Was it a Ball or a Strike? depends on if you are a batter or a pitcher... or? Link to comment
Pilgrim Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Or like where it says judges of the U.S. District Court can impose massive tax increases to finance their opinions. And a court of Soopremes who say, 9-0, that it' okay for him to do so. I liked the part where Thomas Jefferson once said, "Scroom. Let 'em enforce their decision." I didn't much care for his attitude about the case at bar, but I like the chutzpah. "Contempt of court? Hell, no, your Lordship. I have a deep, abiding, and undischargeable contempt for you personally." Pilgrim Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 On the other hand though, many decisions relating to the "establishment clause" have been criticized as activist when they have limited the ability of government display religious material. That clause is in black and white. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is used to rule that nothing remotely religious can be displayed if a cent of gov't money is involved. What's congress making a law got to do with some city hall having a nativity scene on the front lawn? Meanwhile, the meaning of shall not be infringed is the elephant in the room. The Supremes have finally figured out what the first bit of the second amendment means, now they just need to finish the job... Link to comment
smiller Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is used to rule that nothing remotely religious can be displayed if a cent of gov't money is involved. What's congress making a law got to do with some city hall having a nativity scene on the front lawn? Better make room on that lawn for a host of religious displays throughout the year then, with equal government funding for each one. If it's not immediately obvious why that morass is best avoided I don't think I can make it any more clear. I'm not sure why 'shall not be infringed' is so clear and 'shall make no law' is not. The linkage of the establishment clause to a total separation of church and state is a tried, tested, and (IMO) correct interpretation of the intent of the first amendment. And that separation protects the religious segments of society just as much as the secular, if not more so. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I'm not sure why 'shall not be infringed' is so clear and 'shall make no law' is not. "... shall make no law respecting," which makes it even less clear, and substantially broader. Or, that seems pretty clear to me, anyway. The language isn't clear in any of the amendments, because they all bring the baggage of what people want them to mean or think they mean. Link to comment
smiller Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 The language isn't clear because it couldn't be... politics existed then as now. But no matter... I know what they meant. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 But no matter... I know what they meant. You're not the only one. Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I'm not sure why 'shall not be infringed' is so clear and 'shall make no law' is not. That stinky bait was for Jan, and you've just ruined my fishing. Heller was no more "activist" than the rulings you allude to re: the 1st amendment. The stinky bait was the same BS logic I've been hearing for years about how "well regulated militia" was allegedly bearing upon "shall not be infringed". Killjoy. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Heller was no more "activist" than the rulings you allude to re: the 1st amendment. The stinky bait was the same BS logic I've been hearing for years about how "well regulated militia" was allegedly bearing upon "shall not be infringed". If it were to bear on anything, it should be what the scope of the "right to keep and bear arms" is. Link to comment
Fugu Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 If it were to bear on anything, it should be what the scope of the "right to keep and bear arms" is. You're now critiquing statements that were admittedly trolls for legal fine points? Somebody needs a study break. Link to comment
ghaverkamp Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Somebody needs a study break. What do you think I'm doing here? Link to comment
Pilgrim Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 "I'm not sure why 'shall not be infringed' is so clear and 'shall make no law' is not. Because "shall not be infringed" is a much broader prohibition than "shall make no law." Seth, I sort of agree with your sentiment, but not the legal argument. IMHO, "shall make no law" has been warped way out of any semblance to what the plain language says. Making a law and taking a permissive position are not the same things at all. Pilgrim Link to comment
smiller Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Making a law and taking a permissive position are not the same things at all. Perhaps not, but the results can be pretty similar. As I noted the problem isn't so much about government being permissive in religious matters, but whether it could ever be permissive enough. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.